SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC FACTORS IN CONTROL 185evoke a recipient controller, since it is a part of our cultural knowledge that
a sandwich is an item usually for only one person.
(39) John brought a sandwich to eat.
Real world knowledge, thus, can affect the control facts by evoking a
recipient in examples such as (39). Evoked controllers seem particularly
likely to occur with verbs, such as bring, which participate in both transfer
and non-transfer constructions. Note that the controller choice can be influ
enced by real world knowledge only in the case of the subject gap, which
has a non-obligatory control relation. This non-obligatory control relation
appears to be more "fragile", in terms of obligatoriness of the controller,
than the obligatory gap; it is the only gap that can be affected by context.
This is not surprising, as the non-obligatory gap is not a pivot and thus is
syntactically a less important link between the clauses.
An even stronger example of an evoked recipient is provided by (40).
(40) John brought a Cabernet to enjoy with our dinner.
In this example, the plural pronoun our suggests a plural recipient to whom
John brought the Cabernet. Bring typically requires three arguments in
order to have a sense of transfer of possession. However, as we saw above,
a recipient can be evoked by real world knowledge. In this instance, the
recipient is evoked by the need of a referent for the pronoun our. Again,
evoked controllers are possible with non-obligatory control relations, but
not obligatory ones.
Note that an arbitrary control reading is not possible in either (38) or
(40). Only the actor of the "possession and use" verb or an evoked recipient
are eligible controllers. This follows from the fact that arbitrary control is
possible only in subordinate junctures (see sect. 3.3); the constructions in
(38) and (40) are non-subordinate core junctures.
3.2 Other types of core juncturesWe have looked at rationale constructions, a type of clausal juncture, and
purpose constructions, a type of core juncture. The causative/directive,
commissive, and non-causative/non-directive constructions discussed in
FVV are also cases of core juncture, where there is an obligatorily shared
argument between the linked units. We will look at just a few cases of these
non-purpose core junctures here.